Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

it's a good point; there really is no consistency to retail pricing. You don't really know what to expect and it's all case by case.

Worse still, there IS consistency with new game releases, despite the wild variance in quality and quantity.

As I said before, there is something wrong with the business model when Fallout 3 and X Blades both release at the exact same price.

The problem is that game price doesn't mean anything at all. People buy used or wait for price drops (and let's be clear, waiting for a price drop is actually WORSE for publishers than buying used within the launch window is) because if price doesn't mean anything at all, then there is no reason not to try to get the game cheaper. If price was actually a measure of something, even if it was just the ammount of 1s and 0s in a game regardless of quality, I believe you would see less people waiting

I think digital downloads will help a lot of things out. Steam has proven pretty well that you can use unorthodox pricing and still make a good profit.

Mind you, that doesn't help retail stores that sell digitally distributable products... but I think they'll be dying out one way or the other. Once broadband is properly saturated, at least.

DD will kill off the second hand markets that fuel a lot of the turn-over in the industry. Games will sell less since gamers will have less sources to fund their purchases.

I'm not sure why so many people think that they can just ignore this fact to make t untrue.

What do you mean by less sources to fund their purchases? You mean the cash they get from trading in a game?

I don't trade a lot of things in, but I've always understood that you get totally, royally ripped off when you trade in a game. It seems to me that the general price reductions with digital distribution more than offset this. Unless, of course, you meant something different.

I think digital downloads will help a lot of things out. Steam has proven pretty well that you can use unorthodox pricing and still make a good profit.

Mind you, that doesn't help retail stores that sell digitally distributable products... but I think they'll be dying out one way or the other. Once broadband is properly saturated, at least.

DD will kill off the second hand markets that fuel a lot of the turn-over in the industry. Games will sell less since gamers will have less sources to fund their purchases.

I'm not sure why so many people think that they can just ignore this fact to make t untrue.

What do you mean by less sources to fund their purchases? You mean the cash they get from trading in a game?

I don't trade a lot of things in, but I've always understood that you get totally, royally ripped off when you trade in a game. It seems to me that the general price reductions with digital distribution more than offset this. Unless, of course, you meant something different.

What price reductions? The cost of producing physical copies of a game is pretty negligable. DD games are only generally cheaper because they are generally much smaller games. "Full length" DD games have shown an issue of being even HIGHER priced, in fact, if you take a look at many of Sony's offerings, owing to the fact that since there is unlimited "shelf" space, there is no need to discount old games.

And whether or not game trade ins are a "rip off" does not ignore the fact that people get money for those thrades that they use to buy more games. The fact that there is a big business in game trade in shows that a LOT of people are doing this, so even a lot of sums of small money add up.

I think digital downloads will help a lot of things out. Steam has proven pretty well that you can use unorthodox pricing and still make a good profit.

Mind you, that doesn't help retail stores that sell digitally distributable products... but I think they'll be dying out one way or the other. Once broadband is properly saturated, at least.

DD will kill off the second hand markets that fuel a lot of the turn-over in the industry. Games will sell less since gamers will have less sources to fund their purchases.

I'm not sure why so many people think that they can just ignore this fact to make t untrue.

What do you mean by less sources to fund their purchases? You mean the cash they get from trading in a game?

I don't trade a lot of things in, but I've always understood that you get totally, royally ripped off when you trade in a game. It seems to me that the general price reductions with digital distribution more than offset this. Unless, of course, you meant something different.

What price reductions? The cost of producing physical copies of a game is pretty negligable. DD games are only generally cheaper because they are generally much smaller games. "Full length" DD games have shown an issue of being even HIGHER priced, in fact, if you take a look at many of Sony's offerings, owing to the fact that since there is unlimited "shelf" space, there is no need to discount old games.

And whether or not game trade ins are a "rip off" does not ignore the fact that people get money for those thrades that they use to buy more games. The fact that there is a big business in game trade in shows that a LOT of people are doing this, so even a lot of sums of small money add up.

What price reductions? Peruse steam. I'm unfamiliar with Sony, but steam regularly has weekend deals and huge discounts on games. If I want to buy a cheap game, I don't get in the car and look in a bargain bin, I buy something off steam. I don't think I've ever bought something that wasn't a 'full length game', either.

As for cost of creation, one is still near-infinitely more expensive than the other. One doesn't require a retailer get a cut to make a profit. One doesn't require paying to keep the lights on in a brick-and-mortar while open, or at night when the janitor is in. One doesn't require paying Otis, the truck driver, for shipping. One is stuck paying for bandwidth and electronic storefront upkeep, and one pays for everything else.

The only 'full length' digital download game that's cost more than average for me was SC2 --and it didn't cost more than SC2 normally does, it's just that blizzard likes to charge extra for their games. What examples are you thinking of? If they're all based on Sony, I can't help but think that the company has some pretty good reasons for not making digital downloads a centerpiece of their business model.

So anyways, how much do you on average get for trading back your newish game? I understand you only get like $5 off for buying a used one, right? I'm curious, truly, as to how it stacks up vs the generally popular discounts you find on steam.

My point is that the entire price structure of video games is screwed up, and THAT is what is causing publishers to lose money, as well as what is encouraging used game sales.

Additionally, what EA is attempting to do will likely only confuse matters, not improve them.

If you adjust for inflation, console games are actually cheaper now than they were during most, if not all, previous console generations.

Cite?

Most new games are just not worth it from a dollars/hour perspective, not when you have much cheaper alternatives.

No cite, but I grew up with 8- and 16-bit games, and they were all $60 new. A few - Strider for the Genesis, I recall particularly - were $75 new. Between licensing fees to the console manufacturers and the cost of ROM, games back then were expensive as hell to make.

And a lot of games back then were things like shooters or platformers that had maybe 5-10 hours of gameplay. Sure, you had your Final Fantasies that were 40+ hours, but most games weren't.

I don't know, offhand, what $60 in 1990 is in 2010 dollars, but it's pretty obviously more.

Consoles were also generally more expensive. The NES was $200 in 1984 (which, admittedly, came with a game and a second controller), which is something like $450, IIRC. The Atari 2600 was $200 in 1978, which is about $600 in 2010 dollars.

Gaming has never been a cheap hobby, but it used to be a lot worse.

ElJeffe on August 2010

Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

I have no idea if you can find them, but I was referring to digital downloads in the future sense, so I'm not catching the relevance. I'm not saying 'just use steam!', but instead am using steam as the go-to example of digital distribution for video games and how it can reduce prices to the point where used game markets might not really matter.

Good to know about the numbers, I was just going off what other people had mentioned in this thread (which was, buying a newly released game in used form for $5 off, then trading it in for some pittance.)

So anyways, how much do you on average get for trading back your newish game? I understand you only get like $5 off for buying a used one, right? I'm curious, truly, as to how it stacks up vs the generally popular discounts you find on steam.

Can you find FF XIII on steam? Eternal Sonatra? WKC? SO? Persona's? I'm unclear on what sort of games arre avaliable for steam.

And you don't just get $5 off used games.
WKC is $59.99 New. Used is $34.99.
SO is $64.99 new used is $34.99.
Eternal Sonatra new is $34.99 used is $17.99.

You get a savings of 50% or more if your buying used.

The only steam game I've got is Empire: Total War and having upgraded my windows to windows 7 and wiped the HD clean, I find no joy in downloading a 60 GB game back when my bandwidth is 60 GB for the month and I am not rich enough to get unlimited bandwidth. Even though steam games may only be $9.99 downloading them will cost me more than $9.99

It's not comparable at the moment because there isn't a proper analog on the console world, but when Square could do cool things like releasing Final Fantasy 1-13 for 70 bucks before the release of 15, or leverage game tie-ins with movie releases, and no all of this easily without having to negotiate retail space... you start to see how everyone could benefit from it.

Yeah, there will be tradeoffs, like not being able to sell your old ones back into the system. But with how easy and cheap it is to get games through DD if you are sale-conscious, it balances out.

Being an old fucker, like Jeff, I've gotta back his play. When I was a boy, video games were for rich kids. There were just a few on each block. And, they sure as shit didn't have 10 hours of content. Well, I guess you could keep playing River Raid or Pitfall! for 10 hours, but it was just repeating shit after an hour.

My point is that the entire price structure of video games is screwed up, and THAT is what is causing publishers to lose money, as well as what is encouraging used game sales.

Additionally, what EA is attempting to do will likely only confuse matters, not improve them.

If you adjust for inflation, console games are actually cheaper now than they were during most, if not all, previous console generations.

Cite?

Most new games are just not worth it from a dollars/hour perspective, not when you have much cheaper alternatives.

No cite, but I grew up with 8- and 16-bit games, and they were all $60 new. A few - Strider for the Genesis, I recall particularly - were $75 new. Between licensing fees to the console manufacturers and the cost of ROM, games back then were expensive as hell to make.

And a lot of games back then were things like shooters or platformers that had maybe 5-10 hours of gameplay. Sure, you had your Final Fantasies that were 40+ hours, but most games weren't.

I don't know, offhand, what $60 in 1990 is in 2010 dollars, but it's pretty obviously more.

Consoles were also generally more expensive. The NES was $200 in 1984 (which, admittedly, came with a game and a second controller), which is something like $450, IIRC. The Atari 2600 was $200 in 1978, which is about $600 in 2010 dollars.

Gaming has never been a cheap hobby, but it used to be a lot worse.

On the other hand, I remember PC games being less than $60 a decade ago.

HamHamJ on August 2010

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

My point is that the entire price structure of video games is screwed up, and THAT is what is causing publishers to lose money, as well as what is encouraging used game sales.

Additionally, what EA is attempting to do will likely only confuse matters, not improve them.

If you adjust for inflation, console games are actually cheaper now than they were during most, if not all, previous console generations.

Cite?

Most new games are just not worth it from a dollars/hour perspective, not when you have much cheaper alternatives.

No cite, but I grew up with 8- and 16-bit games, and they were all $60 new. A few - Strider for the Genesis, I recall particularly - were $75 new. Between licensing fees to the console manufacturers and the cost of ROM, games back then were expensive as hell to make.

And a lot of games back then were things like shooters or platformers that had maybe 5-10 hours of gameplay. Sure, you had your Final Fantasies that were 40+ hours, but most games weren't.

I don't know, offhand, what $60 in 1990 is in 2010 dollars, but it's pretty obviously more.

Consoles were also generally more expensive. The NES was $200 in 1984 (which, admittedly, came with a game and a second controller), which is something like $450, IIRC. The Atari 2600 was $200 in 1978, which is about $600 in 2010 dollars.

Gaming has never been a cheap hobby, but it used to be a lot worse.

On the other hand, I remember PC games being less than $60 a decade ago.

I regularly paid 50 bucks for my Sierra, iD and LucasArts fixes back in the day.

From 1981 to 2009, the dollar lost 50 percent of it's value. We should all be glad games don't cost 100 bucks right now...

I went to Gamestop a few weeks ago and got Viewtiful Joe 2 for $2 and Sega All-Stars Tennis for $1.50. I can live off of these peanuts until something like Red Dead Redemption (having already sold 2 million copies) goes for $30 new.

I think digital downloads will help a lot of things out. Steam has proven pretty well that you can use unorthodox pricing and still make a good profit.

Mind you, that doesn't help retail stores that sell digitally distributable products... but I think they'll be dying out one way or the other. Once broadband is properly saturated, at least.

DD will kill off the second hand markets that fuel a lot of the turn-over in the industry. Games will sell less since gamers will have less sources to fund their purchases.

I'm not sure why so many people think that they can just ignore this fact to make t untrue.

What do you mean by less sources to fund their purchases? You mean the cash they get from trading in a game?

I don't trade a lot of things in, but I've always understood that you get totally, royally ripped off when you trade in a game. It seems to me that the general price reductions with digital distribution more than offset this. Unless, of course, you meant something different.

What price reductions? The cost of producing physical copies of a game is pretty negligable. DD games are only generally cheaper because they are generally much smaller games. "Full length" DD games have shown an issue of being even HIGHER priced, in fact, if you take a look at many of Sony's offerings, owing to the fact that since there is unlimited "shelf" space, there is no need to discount old games.

And whether or not game trade ins are a "rip off" does not ignore the fact that people get money for those thrades that they use to buy more games. The fact that there is a big business in game trade in shows that a LOT of people are doing this, so even a lot of sums of small money add up.

What price reductions? Peruse steam. I'm unfamiliar with Sony, but steam regularly has weekend deals and huge discounts on games. If I want to buy a cheap game, I don't get in the car and look in a bargain bin, I buy something off steam. I don't think I've ever bought something that wasn't a 'full length game', either.

As for cost of creation, one is still near-infinitely more expensive than the other. One doesn't require a retailer get a cut to make a profit. One doesn't require paying to keep the lights on in a brick-and-mortar while open, or at night when the janitor is in. One doesn't require paying Otis, the truck driver, for shipping. One is stuck paying for bandwidth and electronic storefront upkeep, and one pays for everything else.

The only 'full length' digital download game that's cost more than average for me was SC2 --and it didn't cost more than SC2 normally does, it's just that blizzard likes to charge extra for their games. What examples are you thinking of? If they're all based on Sony, I can't help but think that the company has some pretty good reasons for not making digital downloads a centerpiece of their business model.

So anyways, how much do you on average get for trading back your newish game? I understand you only get like $5 off for buying a used one, right? I'm curious, truly, as to how it stacks up vs the generally popular discounts you find on steam.

Steam is one example. Expecting everything to play out like steam DESPITE the fact that examples exist to the contrary is silly. I am not saying that Sony's model will absolutely be default. I'm just saying that price reductions are by no means guaranteed.

And new game sales aren[t covering ANYONE'S overhead, so that's really moot.

Being an old fucker, like Jeff, I've gotta back his play. When I was a boy, video games were for rich kids. There were just a few on each block. And, they sure as shit didn't have 10 hours of content. Well, I guess you could keep playing River Raid or Pitfall! for 10 hours, but it was just repeating shit after an hour.

What people seem to be missing is that video games being expensive makes TOTAL sense.

Video games are the ultimate in luxury goods. The idea that they would be affordable to the lowest of income folks, and yet still profitable, is kind of insane. It is possible, but it requires things to be done differently, with smaller games being made, and lower tech consoles.

Raising game prices and returning to the rich niche is one of the solutions for the ailments of the market. Insisting that consumers should change their behavior while suppliers change nothing WILL NOT fix things.

I think digital downloads will help a lot of things out. Steam has proven pretty well that you can use unorthodox pricing and still make a good profit.

Mind you, that doesn't help retail stores that sell digitally distributable products... but I think they'll be dying out one way or the other. Once broadband is properly saturated, at least.

DD will kill off the second hand markets that fuel a lot of the turn-over in the industry. Games will sell less since gamers will have less sources to fund their purchases.

I'm not sure why so many people think that they can just ignore this fact to make t untrue.

What do you mean by less sources to fund their purchases? You mean the cash they get from trading in a game?

I don't trade a lot of things in, but I've always understood that you get totally, royally ripped off when you trade in a game. It seems to me that the general price reductions with digital distribution more than offset this. Unless, of course, you meant something different.

What price reductions? The cost of producing physical copies of a game is pretty negligable. DD games are only generally cheaper because they are generally much smaller games. "Full length" DD games have shown an issue of being even HIGHER priced, in fact, if you take a look at many of Sony's offerings, owing to the fact that since there is unlimited "shelf" space, there is no need to discount old games.

And whether or not game trade ins are a "rip off" does not ignore the fact that people get money for those thrades that they use to buy more games. The fact that there is a big business in game trade in shows that a LOT of people are doing this, so even a lot of sums of small money add up.

What price reductions? Peruse steam. I'm unfamiliar with Sony, but steam regularly has weekend deals and huge discounts on games. If I want to buy a cheap game, I don't get in the car and look in a bargain bin, I buy something off steam. I don't think I've ever bought something that wasn't a 'full length game', either.

As for cost of creation, one is still near-infinitely more expensive than the other. One doesn't require a retailer get a cut to make a profit. One doesn't require paying to keep the lights on in a brick-and-mortar while open, or at night when the janitor is in. One doesn't require paying Otis, the truck driver, for shipping. One is stuck paying for bandwidth and electronic storefront upkeep, and one pays for everything else.

The only 'full length' digital download game that's cost more than average for me was SC2 --and it didn't cost more than SC2 normally does, it's just that blizzard likes to charge extra for their games. What examples are you thinking of? If they're all based on Sony, I can't help but think that the company has some pretty good reasons for not making digital downloads a centerpiece of their business model.

So anyways, how much do you on average get for trading back your newish game? I understand you only get like $5 off for buying a used one, right? I'm curious, truly, as to how it stacks up vs the generally popular discounts you find on steam.

Steam is one example. Expecting everything to play out like steam DESPITE the fact that examples exist to the contrary is silly. I am not saying that Sony's model will absolutely be default. I'm just saying that price reductions are by no means guaranteed.

And new game sales aren[t covering ANYONE'S overhead, so that's really moot.

By market share, isn't steam like 'the' example? I did use the term 'go to example' for a reason.

Steam is one example. Expecting everything to play out like steam DESPITE the fact that examples exist to the contrary is silly. I am not saying that Sony's model will absolutely be default. I'm just saying that price reductions are by no means guaranteed.

And new game sales aren[t covering ANYONE'S overhead, so that's really moot.

I would argue that Apple's app store, where games go on sale all the time (with the only person making the decision being the developer of the game), and games like GTA: chinatown Wars (apparently a near-perfect PSP port) costs 1/4 of the price of the physical media version...

The only big guy acting like an ass right now in the digital distribution space is Sony. Other people are figuring out digital distribution just fine.

Being an old fucker, like Jeff, I've gotta back his play. When I was a boy, video games were for rich kids. There were just a few on each block. And, they sure as shit didn't have 10 hours of content. Well, I guess you could keep playing River Raid or Pitfall! for 10 hours, but it was just repeating shit after an hour.

What people seem to be missing is that video games being expensive makes TOTAL sense.

Video games are the ultimate in luxury goods. The idea that they would be affordable to the lowest of income folks, and yet still profitable, is kind of insane. It is possible, but it requires things to be done differently, with smaller games being made, and lower tech consoles.

Raising game prices and returning to the rich niche is one of the solutions for the ailments of the market. Insisting that consumers should change their behavior while suppliers change nothing WILL NOT fix things.

You could never make enough from a niche market to finance modern games unless you set truly insane prices like $1,000 each.

HamHamJ on August 2010

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

Steam is one example. Expecting everything to play out like steam DESPITE the fact that examples exist to the contrary is silly. I am not saying that Sony's model will absolutely be default. I'm just saying that price reductions are by no means guaranteed.

And new game sales aren[t covering ANYONE'S overhead, so that's really moot.

I would argue that Apple's app store, where games go on sale all the time (with the only person making the decision being the developer of the game), and games like GTA: chinatown Wars (apparently a near-perfect PSP port) costs 1/4 of the price of the physical media version...

The only big guy acting like an ass right now in the digital distribution space is Sony. Other people are figuring out digital distribution just fine.

Steam is one example. Expecting everything to play out like steam DESPITE the fact that examples exist to the contrary is silly. I am not saying that Sony's model will absolutely be default. I'm just saying that price reductions are by no means guaranteed.

And new game sales aren[t covering ANYONE'S overhead, so that's really moot.

I would argue that Apple's app store, where games go on sale all the time (with the only person making the decision being the developer of the game), and games like GTA: chinatown Wars (apparently a near-perfect PSP port) costs 1/4 of the price of the physical media version...

The only big guy acting like an ass right now in the digital distribution space is Sony. Other people are figuring out digital distribution just fine.

Stuff goes on sale on PSN quite a bit. More than on XBLM at least.

That's pretty cool, though I have heard that Sony is less generous with their full title PSN releases, like Warhawk.

Sales on DD sites are the very reason that I think the platform will ultimately succeed.

I think digital downloads will help a lot of things out. Steam has proven pretty well that you can use unorthodox pricing and still make a good profit.

Mind you, that doesn't help retail stores that sell digitally distributable products... but I think they'll be dying out one way or the other. Once broadband is properly saturated, at least.

DD will kill off the second hand markets that fuel a lot of the turn-over in the industry. Games will sell less since gamers will have less sources to fund their purchases.

I'm not sure why so many people think that they can just ignore this fact to make t untrue.

What do you mean by less sources to fund their purchases? You mean the cash they get from trading in a game?

I don't trade a lot of things in, but I've always understood that you get totally, royally ripped off when you trade in a game. It seems to me that the general price reductions with digital distribution more than offset this. Unless, of course, you meant something different.

What price reductions? The cost of producing physical copies of a game is pretty negligable. DD games are only generally cheaper because they are generally much smaller games. "Full length" DD games have shown an issue of being even HIGHER priced, in fact, if you take a look at many of Sony's offerings, owing to the fact that since there is unlimited "shelf" space, there is no need to discount old games.

And whether or not game trade ins are a "rip off" does not ignore the fact that people get money for those thrades that they use to buy more games. The fact that there is a big business in game trade in shows that a LOT of people are doing this, so even a lot of sums of small money add up.

What price reductions? Peruse steam. I'm unfamiliar with Sony, but steam regularly has weekend deals and huge discounts on games. If I want to buy a cheap game, I don't get in the car and look in a bargain bin, I buy something off steam. I don't think I've ever bought something that wasn't a 'full length game', either.

As for cost of creation, one is still near-infinitely more expensive than the other. One doesn't require a retailer get a cut to make a profit. One doesn't require paying to keep the lights on in a brick-and-mortar while open, or at night when the janitor is in. One doesn't require paying Otis, the truck driver, for shipping. One is stuck paying for bandwidth and electronic storefront upkeep, and one pays for everything else.

The only 'full length' digital download game that's cost more than average for me was SC2 --and it didn't cost more than SC2 normally does, it's just that blizzard likes to charge extra for their games. What examples are you thinking of? If they're all based on Sony, I can't help but think that the company has some pretty good reasons for not making digital downloads a centerpiece of their business model.

So anyways, how much do you on average get for trading back your newish game? I understand you only get like $5 off for buying a used one, right? I'm curious, truly, as to how it stacks up vs the generally popular discounts you find on steam.

Steam is one example. Expecting everything to play out like steam DESPITE the fact that examples exist to the contrary is silly. I am not saying that Sony's model will absolutely be default. I'm just saying that price reductions are by no means guaranteed.

And new game sales aren[t covering ANYONE'S overhead, so that's really moot.

By market share, isn't steam like 'the' example? I did use the term 'go to example' for a reason.

Steam's market share is zero on consoles, which is where the bigger money is.

I feel like you keep using halves of economic concepts, rather than full ones. The whole point is that digital distribution is still such a new things that there really is no way to predict what will happen with ANY certainty. The digital revolution in music was buoyed by the fact that you could finally purchase individual tracks at cheap prices, rather than being forced to buy entire albums. There is no real parallel yet of that sort of a feature for either movies or games. (TV Shows have this with individual episodes, but the serial nature of television makes this feature a bit less important.)

You are ignoring a ton of different factors in this equation, and just claiming "this one incredibly complicated thing will be exactly like this one other thing that it has a couple of things in common with." Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Even if your answers turn out to be right, the work that you did to get to them is flawed.

Being an old fucker, like Jeff, I've gotta back his play. When I was a boy, video games were for rich kids. There were just a few on each block. And, they sure as shit didn't have 10 hours of content. Well, I guess you could keep playing River Raid or Pitfall! for 10 hours, but it was just repeating shit after an hour.

What people seem to be missing is that video games being expensive makes TOTAL sense.

Video games are the ultimate in luxury goods. The idea that they would be affordable to the lowest of income folks, and yet still profitable, is kind of insane. It is possible, but it requires things to be done differently, with smaller games being made, and lower tech consoles.

Raising game prices and returning to the rich niche is one of the solutions for the ailments of the market. Insisting that consumers should change their behavior while suppliers change nothing WILL NOT fix things.

You could never make enough from a niche market to finance modern games unless you set truly insane prices like $1,000 each.

There would be less games coming out.

ANY solution is going to require less games coming out, though. The market is currently being flooded, which is ALSO a part of the problem. The more games that exist, the less that consumers are willing to pay for a game.

. The more games that exist, the less that consumers are willing to pay for a game.

o.0 I don't think that's even kind of true. The amount of shovelware on a shelf doesn't reduce prices of AAA games. Otherwise PS2 games would have been selling for a buck and a quarter back in its hayday.

. The more games that exist, the less that consumers are willing to pay for a game.

o.0 I don't think that's even kind of true. The amount of shovelware on a shelf doesn't reduce prices of AAA games. Otherwise PS2 games would have been selling for a buck and a quarter back in its hayday.

Being an old fucker, like Jeff, I've gotta back his play. When I was a boy, video games were for rich kids. There were just a few on each block. And, they sure as shit didn't have 10 hours of content. Well, I guess you could keep playing River Raid or Pitfall! for 10 hours, but it was just repeating shit after an hour.

What people seem to be missing is that video games being expensive makes TOTAL sense.

Video games are the ultimate in luxury goods. The idea that they would be affordable to the lowest of income folks, and yet still profitable, is kind of insane. It is possible, but it requires things to be done differently, with smaller games being made, and lower tech consoles.

Raising game prices and returning to the rich niche is one of the solutions for the ailments of the market. Insisting that consumers should change their behavior while suppliers change nothing WILL NOT fix things.

You could never make enough from a niche market to finance modern games unless you set truly insane prices like $1,000 each.

There would be less games coming out.

ANY solution is going to require less games coming out, though. The market is currently being flooded, which is ALSO a part of the problem. The more games that exist, the less that consumers are willing to pay for a game.

Yeah that won't help. If a game needs to sell 500,000 copies to turn a profit at $60 (numbers are made up), and you make it a niche product so now it only sells like 50,000; it now has to cost $600 to still turn a profit.

HamHamJ on August 2010

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

So you are saying too many high quality games are coming out that people want to play, and if the industry wants to weather this, they need to work together to stagger their releases more and make less titles in general?

It's odd to me that I never see anyone make a fuss about the secondhand market for anything other than video games. Maybe some companies here and there, but consumers? I've never heard a single person rail about a used book store or autotrader.com the way I've heard hundreds of people that play video games rail against used game sales. I don't understand it.

I think digital downloads will help a lot of things out. Steam has proven pretty well that you can use unorthodox pricing and still make a good profit.

Mind you, that doesn't help retail stores that sell digitally distributable products... but I think they'll be dying out one way or the other. Once broadband is properly saturated, at least.

DD will kill off the second hand markets that fuel a lot of the turn-over in the industry. Games will sell less since gamers will have less sources to fund their purchases.

I'm not sure why so many people think that they can just ignore this fact to make t untrue.

What do you mean by less sources to fund their purchases? You mean the cash they get from trading in a game?

I don't trade a lot of things in, but I've always understood that you get totally, royally ripped off when you trade in a game. It seems to me that the general price reductions with digital distribution more than offset this. Unless, of course, you meant something different.

What price reductions? The cost of producing physical copies of a game is pretty negligable. DD games are only generally cheaper because they are generally much smaller games. "Full length" DD games have shown an issue of being even HIGHER priced, in fact, if you take a look at many of Sony's offerings, owing to the fact that since there is unlimited "shelf" space, there is no need to discount old games.

And whether or not game trade ins are a "rip off" does not ignore the fact that people get money for those thrades that they use to buy more games. The fact that there is a big business in game trade in shows that a LOT of people are doing this, so even a lot of sums of small money add up.

What price reductions? Peruse steam. I'm unfamiliar with Sony, but steam regularly has weekend deals and huge discounts on games. If I want to buy a cheap game, I don't get in the car and look in a bargain bin, I buy something off steam. I don't think I've ever bought something that wasn't a 'full length game', either.

As for cost of creation, one is still near-infinitely more expensive than the other. One doesn't require a retailer get a cut to make a profit. One doesn't require paying to keep the lights on in a brick-and-mortar while open, or at night when the janitor is in. One doesn't require paying Otis, the truck driver, for shipping. One is stuck paying for bandwidth and electronic storefront upkeep, and one pays for everything else.

The only 'full length' digital download game that's cost more than average for me was SC2 --and it didn't cost more than SC2 normally does, it's just that blizzard likes to charge extra for their games. What examples are you thinking of? If they're all based on Sony, I can't help but think that the company has some pretty good reasons for not making digital downloads a centerpiece of their business model.

So anyways, how much do you on average get for trading back your newish game? I understand you only get like $5 off for buying a used one, right? I'm curious, truly, as to how it stacks up vs the generally popular discounts you find on steam.

Steam is one example. Expecting everything to play out like steam DESPITE the fact that examples exist to the contrary is silly. I am not saying that Sony's model will absolutely be default. I'm just saying that price reductions are by no means guaranteed.

And new game sales aren[t covering ANYONE'S overhead, so that's really moot.

By market share, isn't steam like 'the' example? I did use the term 'go to example' for a reason.

Steam's market share is zero on consoles, which is where the bigger money is.

I feel like you keep using halves of economic concepts, rather than full ones. The whole point is that digital distribution is still such a new things that there really is no way to predict what will happen with ANY certainty. The digital revolution in music was buoyed by the fact that you could finally purchase individual tracks at cheap prices, rather than being forced to buy entire albums. There is no real parallel yet of that sort of a feature for either movies or games. (TV Shows have this with individual episodes, but the serial nature of television makes this feature a bit less important.)

You are ignoring a ton of different factors in this equation, and just claiming "this one incredibly complicated thing will be exactly like this one other thing that it has a couple of things in common with." Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Even if your answers turn out to be right, the work that you did to get to them is flawed.

Why don't you let me know what those factors are, rather than just saying 'woe is me, I must rail against the used games thread and how people don't think the devs should change their models, but when someone suggests a way they can that's got some success so far I don't want to hear it!'

Digital distribution on consoles requires the acceptance and approval of MS/Sony/Nintendo. That's it. That's the only difference. Saying steam doesn't count cause it isn't on consoles is just a cheap a cop-out, when we're talking about ways for devs to change their business model successfully and it's been a huge success.

edit: I get the impression you just don't like the idea of digital downloads because it kills off game reselling.

It's odd to me that I never see anyone make a fuss about the secondhand market for anything other than video games. Maybe some companies here and there, but consumers? I've never heard a single person rail about a used book store or autotrader.com the way I've heard hundreds of people that play video games rail against used game sales. I don't understand it.

Used car salesman are considered the scum of the earth.

People would be less angry at the used videogames industry if the face of it didn't suck so much. The consumer AND the publisher gets screwed.

It's odd to me that I never see anyone make a fuss about the secondhand market for anything other than video games. Maybe some companies here and there, but consumers? I've never heard a single person rail about a used book store or autotrader.com the way I've heard hundreds of people that play video games rail against used game sales. I don't understand it.

Used car salesman are considered the scum of the earth.

For their perceived tactics, not the product they sell.

edit: To expand on that a bit, it'd be one thing to be upset at GameStop for how they run their business, but to be against the entire idea of selling used games? I just don't see that in any other industry ever.

It's odd to me that I never see anyone make a fuss about the secondhand market for anything other than video games. Maybe some companies here and there, but consumers? I've never heard a single person rail about a used book store or autotrader.com the way I've heard hundreds of people that play video games rail against used game sales. I don't understand it.

Used car salesman are considered the scum of the earth.

For their perceived tactics, not the product they sell.

There are a lot of people who hate used car lots for the exact same reasons they hate gamestop.

Will screw you when they buy your car, and turn it around for 1000s more...

Will lie about the "newness" of the product...

Will pressure you into shitty warranties and other unneeded accessories...

Meanwhile, people are less inclined to hate a Carmax, a used car lot, because of more consumer-friendly practices.

I think people are much cooler with goozex than they are gamestop in general.

That's not really addressing my point, which I tried to make clearer with my edit before. I'm not talking about GameStop, I'm talking about the idea of selling used games. There are a lot of people outright against that, and many of those people get quite worked up over it, even equating it to piracy in some regards. I've never seen someone bitching about someone going to yard sales or buying a used car, but the secondhand video game market evokes a totally separate reaction from many. I just don't understand it.

I still don't think pricing is affected by the number of games that are "on the shelf" so to speak.

Games are more like movies than loaves of bread. Movies are priced to your area, and all of the new movies that aren't some straight to video trash are the same price. I don't walk into a theatre wanting to see Inception and instead see Barney Goes to the Alamo! because Barney is $1.

Why don't you let me know what those factors are, rather than just saying 'woe is me, I must rail against the used games thread and how people don't think the devs should change their models, but when someone suggests a way they can that's got some success so far I don't want to hear it!'

Digital distribution on consoles requires the acceptance and approval of MS/Sony/Nintendo. That's it. That's the only difference. Saying steam doesn't count cause it isn't on consoles is just a cheap a cop-out, when we're talking about ways for devs to change their business model successfully and it's been a huge success.

edit: I get the impression you just don't like the idea of digital downloads because it kills off game reselling.

Evander's point seems pretty clear to me.

P) Digital distribution does not lower the cost of making games by any significant amount. So any decrease in prices via it would have to come from the companies cut, not actual savings.
P) Lack of resale decreases the value of the games.

C) Digitally distributed games actually cost more in real terms.

C2) Therefore, if you moved to a completely DD model, sales would drop.

Therefore, DD will not increase profit margins.

HamHamJ on August 2010

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

Why don't you let me know what those factors are, rather than just saying 'woe is me, I must rail against the used games thread and how people don't think the devs should change their models, but when someone suggests a way they can that's got some success so far I don't want to hear it!'

Digital distribution on consoles requires the acceptance and approval of MS/Sony/Nintendo. That's it. That's the only difference. Saying steam doesn't count cause it isn't on consoles is just a cheap a cop-out, when we're talking about ways for devs to change their business model successfully and it's been a huge success.

edit: I get the impression you just don't like the idea of digital downloads because it kills off game reselling.

Evander's point seems pretty clear to me.

P) Digital distribution does not lower the cost of making games by any significant amount. So any decrease in prices via it would have to come from the companies cut, not actual savings.
P) Lack of resale decreases the value of the games.

C) Digitally distributed games actually cost more in real terms.

C2) Therefore, if you moved to a completely DD model, sales would drop.

Therefore, DD will not increase profit margins.

Thank god there's also this cost called 'distribution'. Remember? The one that makes your milk get more expensive every time the cost of gasoline goes up?

Phew! Thank god!

Seriously, where is this idea coming from that packaging something and shipping it all over the world isn't a significant part of the cost of selling something?